R v Shenika Young

An immediate custodial sentence may be appropriate for acquiring or possessing criminal property where the offender plays a crucial role in a serious and persistent fraud, acts for financial gain, and knows the transactions are criminal. Previous good character, personal financial pressure, education and employment may mitigate sentence, but do not require suspension where the offending remains deeply dishonest and integral to a professional operation.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Isleworth to acquiring or possessing criminal property contrary to section 329(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. She received eight months’ imprisonment after allowing fraudulently diverted funds to enter her account, transferring part of them and making repeated cash withdrawals.

The sentencing judge assessed medium culpability and category 5 harm under the relevant money-laundering guideline. After mitigation and full credit for an early guilty plea, he imposed an immediate sentence of eight months’ imprisonment.

With leave of the single judge, the appellant appealed against sentence. She submitted that it should have been suspended because this was a one-off offence by a person of good character under acute financial pressure, and sought a variation enabling her to take university examinations.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court held that the eight-month immediate custodial sentence was not manifestly excessive. It considered the sentence, if anything, lenient.

2. The offending formed part of a serious fraud of an increasingly prevalent kind. The appellant’s role was crucial to its success. Her conduct was deeply dishonest and persistent: she allowed the funds into her account, transferred part of them, and made several withdrawals which she knew were for a criminal purpose.

3. The sentencing judge was entitled to regard the appellant as an integral and important participant in a professional operation, although she was not its ringleader. Her previous good character, financial pressures, studies and employment had properly been reflected by reducing the guideline starting point and allowing full credit for her guilty plea.

4. Those mitigating matters did not make suspension appropriate. The judge was right to impose immediate custody. The court declined to vary the sentence to allow the appellant to sit her examinations, observing that the consequence followed from her offending.

5. The court directed an administrative amendment of the Crown Court record to state the correct victim surcharge: £100.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence in [2018] EWCA Crim 3017.
• Crown Court at Isleworth: on 31 January 2018, imposed eight months’ immediate imprisonment following the appellant’s guilty plea to an offence contrary to section 329(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.